Letter from Henry Harrisse to the Executive Committee of the
Board of Trustees, October 9, 1856 [Containing a Postscript to the Memorial
of September 29, 1856] : Electronic Edition. Harrisse, Henry, 1829-1910 Funding from the University Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill supported the electronic publication of this title.Text transcribed byBari HelmsImages scanned byCaitlin R. DonnellyText encoded by Caitlin R. Donnelly First Edition, 2007ca. 36KThe University Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, North Carolina2007

University of North Carolina Papers (#40005),
University Archives, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Letter from Henry Harrisse to the Executive Committee
of the Board of Trustees, October 9, 1856 [Containing a Postscript to
the Memorial of September 29, 1856] Henri Herrisse9 pages, 10 page images1856Call number 40005 (University Archives, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

The electronic edition is a part of the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill digital library, Documenting the American South.

The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 5 of the TEI in
Libraries Guidelines.

Originals are in the University Archives, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.

Original grammar, punctuation, and spelling have been preserved.

Page images can be viewed and compared in parallel with the text.

Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed, and the trailing part of
a word has been joined to the preceding line.

All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity
references.

All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as ".

All single right and left quotation marks are encoded as '.

All em dashes are encoded as —.

Indentation in lines has not been preserved.

English Any special keywords assigned for this project 2007-03-19,Caitlin R. Donnellyfinished TEI/XML encoding.
Letter from Henry
Harrisse to the Executive
Committee of the Board of Trustees, October 9, 1856 [Containing a
Postscript to the Memorial of September 29, 1856]
Chapel Hill, Oct. 9th 1856, 11 P.M.To the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of the University.

Permit me, Gentlemen, to subjoin to each of the allegations contained in my
communication of the 27ulto, a few references to the Journal of the Faculty.

1o"The discipline is lax, and impunity an
occurrence of every day life"

Last Friday week, a student,1
notorious for his improprietry of conduct and who had been once suspended for
drunkeness, was reported for having gone to Hillsboro without the
knowledge or consent either of his parents or Faculty; and there, in a drunken
brawl, insulted, cursed, and I think struck, a quiet and respectable citizen of
the place. The case was so plain that the Faculty had to dismiss him; and yet,
in the very face of the late resolutions passed by the Trustees, and which so clearly pointed to offences of this description,
in less than one week thereafter; a majority of the
Faculty actually reinstated him in all his rights and privileges.

About a fortnight ago, another student,2 was brought and admonished before the Faculty for the FIFTEENTH time! — and for no trivial offences.

1 Mr. William Murphy, of Salisbury.

2 Mr. J.
Hargrave of Wilmington

2 o. "If in addition to his
manifold tribulations, we add a disposition on the part of his colleagues to
drive him to a resignation by withholding their support, or if such a belief
is current among the students
. . . "

The first part of this sentence must not be taken in an absolute sense; for,
indeed, I have in the Faculty, friends who have always supported me. This is a
mere inference, the truth of which must be drawn from the following cases, and
the treatment which I have always received at the hands of some of my
colleagues.

As to the alternative "or if such a belief is current among the students
. . . " I must be permitted to say that it
does not admit of any doubt. The belief is and has
been current for sometime, that the Faculty is not disposed to sustain me in the
enforcement of the college discipline; and it is to this opinion that I and
several of my friends of the Faculty, ascribe chiefly the difficulties which I
find in the discharge of my duties.

3o"Strange as it may appear to those who are not
familiar with the proceedings of this Faculty such a letter was
accepted."

The facts set forth in the letter of the 27th ulto, speak
enough of themselves; but to give an idea of the latitude with which students
are permitted to treat the Faculty, as a Faculty, I
beg leave to give the following instances.

Not long since, Mr Benjamin Smith, an old offender, was called
before the Faculty for neglecting his duties andnot
attending recitation.

— "Mr. Smith, why do you so rarely attend recitation?

— "Because I choose to do it!"

No notice whatever was taken of that reply.

Last week, he was summoned again, and there in the presence of all the officers
he would constantly replicate, interrupt his admonishers, speak and retort and
not in the kindest manner. The President tells him to be silent — No,
I won't! — I wish you to retire — I'll go when I am ready!

Mr. Smith
is still a member of college and is daily complained of. It must be said,
however, that the next day, when called upon, he endeavored to explain his
remarks: But what an explanation!!!

As to the style of Mr. Whitaker's letter, — I have lost the copy; but
as you may well imagine, I kept a lively recollection of it. Judge Battle, however, was present when read; his memory is a faithful one,
and I have no doubt but he will corroborate the version I give of it.

In regard to the four cases cited, I will content myself with quoting the Faculty
Journal

1.a. Thursday Oct. 4th 1855

"Messrs Ringo and
Whitaker appeared before the Faculty and were admonished for
disorderly conduct and disrespectful language to the instructor at Mr. Herrisse's
recitation room. Mr Whitaker having made an insulting remarkabout Mr. Herrisse before the Faculty, was required to send a
written apology to-morrow on pain of being dismissed, if he should fail to
comply with this injunction."

Perhaps it will not be amiss to repeat here the words of that letter:

"Gov Swain." I have been told by Dr Mitchell that if I do not retract what I said yesterday, I shall be
dismissed. I therefore retract."

2.b. November 13th 1855

"Mr Whitaker was reprimanded for impertinence to his instructor in the
same Department (French). After he retired, it was moved, in consideration of
his repeated offences of this kind, that he be dismissed. This motion was
ordered to be upon the table, and Prof. Mitchell was directed to inform
him that it would be taken up and carried, if he should appear before the
Faculty again upon a similar occasion."

3.c. Feb. 15th 1856.

"Mr. Whitaker of the Soph. Class appeared and was admonished for
impropriety at recitation. A motion was made to dismiss him in consideration of
his repeated offences of this description. It was ordered that this motion
should be laid upon the table and that he be informed of the fact as a warning
against further transgressions.

4:d. Aug. 14th 1856.

"Whitaker of the Junior Class appeared before the Faculty reported by Mr.
Herrisse,
to answer for impertinence to him at recitation. A motion was made to dismiss
him which was lost by the casting vote of the President. Prof. Phillips was then appointed to see his mother and inform her of his conduct and of his peculiar relation to the
Faculty."

The following statement, which is on the margin of the book, was inserted about
two weeks after the vote had been taken, and at the instance of Gov. Swain who, in
presence of the Faculty, handed it to the Secretary.

"because there was not a full meeting of the Faculty, and no application
had been made according to the usages of the
Institution to have one summoned.

I wish to state here, that if such be the written rule, it is not always the rule
of practice. Oftentimes, (as the Journal will show — for there are
three cases as mine to one according to the strict rule—) the delinquent is brought
before the Faculty; a motion is made to dismiss him; and then one of the members
moves to postpone the case until there is a full attendance of the Faculty. I
have, within the last two sessions, heard DrMitchell make
at least three such motions under such circumstances.

This last case, occurred during the recitation from 5 to 6 P.M; and Mr Whitaker
appeared before the Faculty in less than a half an hour thereafter.

But I ask, with due respect, if the motion was soirregular, and Gov. Swain was aware of it, why did he permit the vote to be
taken upon it?

This however is of no importance whatever and does not at all touch the merits of
the case; for, on the very next Friday, when there was a full meeting of the
Faculty, the motion was again made — quite in order, this time, and
lost by the same vote. i.e.:

Appendix Second to the minutes of August 15th. 1856: which the Faculty directed to be placed on
record Oct. 9th. 1856

The motion to dismiss Wm Whitaker
being now renewed, the following vote was taken

Ayes — Messrs Mitchell, Phillips, FetterWheat, Shipp and
Brown.

Nays — Messrs Hubbard, Hedrick, Pool,
Lucas, Battle and
Wetmore.

Prof C. Phillips declined to vote.

A true copy.

A. G. BrownSecretary of
Faculty

Having reported the case, I did not vote.

It was to avoid the argument." Why — the case is still
open" — that notwithstanding the above vote, I waited until
a reply had been received from Mr Whitaker. The Journal does not mention the
fact, but it is denied by no body that I know of, that a letter from Mr. Whitaker refusing to withdraw or showing no disposition to withdraw his
son from college, was read and listened to, at one regular meeting,
about three weeks ago.

"No motion was substituted in its
place."

According to the rule of practice here, as well as elsewhere, the privilege to
move for a reconsideration of a vote, belongs exclusively to those who form the
majority. As they did not move in the matter, and let
two or three meetings pass without doing so, my friends and myself considered
the matter as brought to a close.

Now, I ask — what else could I do, but to appeal to the well known
impartiality of the Trustees?

I have heard it urged this way, that they voted against the motion on account of
the threat or comittal I had made. But it seems to me, that sound logic requires
that the Faculty should first vote upon the merits of the case. If the charge is
proved, let the delinquent be punished. If the charge is not proved, then it is
time to consider whether the Facultyis bound by my
committal. But, without speaking of the six gentlemen who voted for the motion
to dismiss: Prof. Fetter and Dr Wheat declared, the latter in presence of the whole
Faculty, that Mr Whitakerdeserved to have been sent off!

It is also alleged that I have had many difficulties with the students.

Had I been willing to submit to the whims and indolence of our students, it is
self evident that the Faculty would never have heard of any such difficulties.
We see that every day! But, these difficulties are chiefly to be ascribed to the
prejudice which exists here against foreigners in general. As a prof, I beg
leave to state, that in the three years and a half I have been connected with
the University, with the exception of the
Whitaker's affairs, I can recollect only Four
personal difficulties. Two arose in the discharge of my duties; and the classes
themselves acknowledged individually to me that I was not to blame; and the
other two, were with men whom I did not teach, that I had never seen or spoken
to in my life! One1 looked at me;
and I beheld his features for the first time when brought before the Faculty by
somebody else; The other,[2] whom I
did not even know by name, cursed me in the public streets

1 Mr William Montfort of Onslow.

2 Mr. Eust. Hunt of Pittsylvania. Va.

If I may be permitted to speak again of Mr Whitaker, I ask leave to say
that I am not the only member of the Faculty who ever summoned him; and that
after having often disturbed Tutor Lucas' recitation; he is to
this day, guilty of the same offence in Prof. Hedrick's room. I hold
this piece of information from these two gentlemen themselves. And indeed, it is
an amusing episode in this case to see the endeavors now made to clothe Mr Whitaker with the four cardinal virtues!

The Faculty, or some of its members, appeal to the fact that when they used to
recommend my services, they never availed themselves of the privilege of turning
me out. But I must say in reply, that nearly two
years have elapsed since they had a chance, and but for the kind
intercession of the Executive
Committee, I am "morally certain," that I would
have been dismissed at the very next closing meeting of the Faculty; Further, I
have been told over and over again, even by the direction of the Faculty that my
renomination always hung by a thread; and — I must say, that those
who voted against me then, are the very ones who vote
against me now.

I have appealed to you, Gentlemen, because you have always treated me kindly,
justly and with generosity. And at this very moment, in the stillness of the
night, I feel that you will do me justice!